tv CNN Newsroom CNN October 25, 2014 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
us on "new day" tomorrow. up next, america's choice, debate nature for u.s. senate seat in new hampshire. good night. tonight, a high-stakes debate in a race that could decide control of the u.s. senate. >> new hampshire deserves better than scott brown's fear mongering and grandstanding. >> the current senator from new hampshire versus the former senator of massachusetts who wants her job. >> putting new hampshire first. since when? >> republican scott brown is fighting attempts to bag him as a carpet bagger from the state next door. >> i will answer only to you. >> democrat jean shaheen is fighting attempts to label her as a rubber stamp for the president. >> this race is about who is going to represent the people of new hampshire. >> some of the bigges names in politics are taking sides in the state that holds the leadoff presidential primary. >> jean shaheen -- >> scott brown. >> senator shaheen. >> scott brown. >> election day is almost here. the senators' race is up for
grabs. and it's new hampshire's choice. live from concord, new hampshire, this is "debate night." we want to welcome our viewers in new hampshire and around the country. i'm wolf blitzer from cnn's "the situation room." tonight, tough questions for the democratic senator, jean shaheen, and republicanel chaer, former senator from massachusetts, scott brown. i'm joined by paul steinhauser, political brecht director and anchor of n h1, our partner in this debate. all of our viewers can join this debate in real-time. go to bing.com/cnn to tell us when you agree or disagree with the candidates' response. let's get to the debate. both candidates will have one minute to respond to questions, 30 seconds for rebuttal. we'll allow conversation between
the candidates, we'll also press them to actually answer the questions that are asked. senator shaheen, senator brown, welcome to this debate. thanks to both of you for joining us. senator brown, let me start with you. the news of the day, a possible ebola scare right now in new york city. a doctor just back from west africa. rushed to the hospital in manhattan. since returning to the united states, he did not self-quarantine. we know, for example, he went to a bowling alley in brooklyn last night. here's the question. should the federal government mandate quarantines for high-risk individuals like this doctor? >> well, thank you, wolf. and before i answer that question, i want to thank our sponsors and thank senator shaheen for participating. with regard to ebola, it's real. it's a rational fear in dealing with this very deadly disease. and absolutely, that doctor should have been quarantined. he should have known better. that being said, we have a situation right now where the policy with the cdc and the
president hiring a czar who had no experience in this field is an area where we disagree. we need to have a clear and concise policy. we want the president to succeed, but it's confusing. we need to be reassured right now. and because there is a rational fear, as i speak to the citizens of new hampshire, there's a rational fear that this and other types of diseases will come into our country. >> go ahead, senator shaheen. specifically, is there anything that the president is not doing that you would like him to do to better protect americans from ebola? >> well, i understand why people are concerned. and afraid, because this is a new disease and we haven't seen it before. we need to do everything possible to make sure that our people are safe. you know, it sort of reminds me of the post september 11th period when i was governor and we were dealing with the threat of anthrax and bioterrorism. and i brought together the medical experts, and the emergency response folks to make recommendations for how we put plans in place.
and that's what we need to do now. you know, my opponent and i aren't infectious disease experts. so we really need to rely on the experts. we need to make sure that we take every measure that's going to keep people safe. i think the screenings at the airports are an important step. i think that the effort to self-quarantine is very important. and we need to follow up with folks and make sure that that's working. i do think we've got to take every measure possible to ensure that our people are safe. and we should do that, working together. we should not be fear mongering about this issue. >> so senator, do you agree with senator brown that the federal government should mandate quarantines for high-risk individuals, just back from west africa? >> well, i think we've got screenings in place now, and we need to check and see how those screenings are going to work. you know, one of the challenges is that people are not getting a lot of accurate information. and we need to make sure that people understand what this
disease is, that they know what to look for. and that there are plans in place, protocols. i met with the emergency response officials here in new hampshire with public health officials to talk to them about the plans that are in place here in new hampshire. and i think we are responding positively, we need to make sure at the federal level that not only are we doing those screenings, but that we're also providing the support that local communities and states need, because they are the first responders in this effort. >> senator brown, let me respond -- i'll ask a specific question and you can respond to her in this. you recently said that had mitt romney been elected president of the united states and i'm quoting you now, we would not be worrying about ebola right now. so what are you saying here? are you saying that it's -- president obama's fault that we're worrying about ebola right now? >> no, of course not. but i would like to respond. senator said we don't have accurate information. that's the issue. the fact that the president has been giving bits and pieces. there's been misinformation.
and different types of information from the cdc. we need to do a travel ban. it makes sense to do a travel ban to make sure that anybody who has been in an infected country would come back and obviously get screened as we were just talking about now. and what i was referring to governor romney, we were talking about a whole host of things, bcause he was right on russia, he was right on obamacare and he's been right on the economy. and had he been president, i feel he would have had a clear and concise plan. he would have reassured the american people that, in fact, hey, this is the problem, this is how we're going to deal with it. and this is what you can do to help. we don't need to be experts, folks to deal with this issue. it's common sense. and to have the president go and appoint a czar that's there strictly for political purposes, makes absolutely no sense. and that's part of the problem with this administration. it's confusing. and incoherent policies like this supported by senator shaheen, a very problematic. >> senator shaheen, go ahead. >> well, again, neither my opponent nor i are infectious
disease experts. what we have heard from the experts is there is concern that a travel ban would make this worse. i'm in the camp of let's do what's going to work, based on what we're hearing from medical experts and emergency response experts. and so that's what i support. >> so you don't support a travel ban. is that what you're saying? >> what i've said is that a travel ban, if the experts tell us that that's what we need to do, and that's workable, i think that's what we should support. but i'm not willing to tell the experts that this is what we have to do. >> excuse me, wolf. i called for a travel ban, bipartisan members of the congressional delegations and congress have called for a travel ban. the thing that's bothersome is it's very typical that senator shaheen waits to get the okay from the president to do many different types of things. i'm encouraged that she finally said that, in fact, she supports a travel ban and joins with one of our local congresswomen on that very important issue.
it's real. we need to be very safe and you don't need to be an expert, once again, to use common sense policies. and right now the president and his team are issuing very confusing policies on this very important issue. >> you want to respond to that? >> well, the cdc and that dallas hospital did make mistakes. the important thing is that we learn from our mistakes, that we put measures in place to address that. that's what we're seeing now. we need protocols across this country. what we don't need is people fear mongering about this issue. we don't need people who don't have medical expertise trying to get people concerned about what we've got to do to respond. >> who is -- senator shaheen, who is fear amomongering. >> i think that's what my opponent has been doing, talking about people coming across the border who have ebola who are going to infect people across this country. we had some good news on ebola this week. we heard that the americans who had had been ill, being treated
for this, are now -- one nurse is out of the hospital and the other one is doing much better. the cameraman is out of the hospital. so we have been successful in treating the americans who have been infected. and we need to make sure we continue to follow those same kinds of procedures to address the challenge. >> senator brown, she says you're fear mongering. >> thank you, i'm glad you brought that up. she calls it fear mongering, i call it rational fear as well as the citizens in this country have a rational fear this is real. and don't take my word for it. general kelly, in charge of the border in mexico has indicated that the clearest pathway to bring anything, whether it's criminals, terrorists or disease, is through that southern border. so it's not me talking. it's also general kelly and many other people who care and understand this issue. that's why we need to close the border. it's so critical. i voted to close the border, senator shaheen has voted not to close the border, that's a huge difference between us. >> senator brown, let's be
precise. are you saying ebola is crossing the border? >> i never said ebola is crossing the border but general kelly has indicated and stated the clearest path to get any type of disease, especially ebola, hits latin america, people are going to be coming through the southern border like it's a wide open situation as it is and even worse. and he recommends that we close it in the event that that happens. >> i just want to be precise and i'll move on to a question from paul steinhauser. but as far as a travel ban is concerned, you're still weighing that, you want more expertise. >> that's no what i said. i said if the experts tell us this is a workable plan, that's what i would support. and the fact is, if you support securing the border with mexico, then you should support comprehensive immigration reform. that's what i have supported. my opponent doesn't support that. even though there are very strong measures in that legislation that's been passed by the senate with bipartisan support from both senator ayotte and senator mccain. that would strengthen our border, 700-mile fence. double the number of border agents, more money for
surveillance and interdiction. that's what we should be doing. and the house should take up that bill. >> and i just want to be precise on this one point. when you said "i guarantee you we would not be worrying about ebola right now, had mitt romney been president of the united states," you stand by that. >> with all respect, what i said is, we were talking about many different issues. we were talking about obamacare, we were talking about him being right on russia. and i have said and i will say again, had he been in charge, we would have a clear and concise policy as to what we're going to do, where we're going, and how we can help. now with regard to immigration -- >> let me interrupt, senator. you also said we would not be worrying about ebola right now if romney had been president. >> no, that's taken out of context. >> it's not taken out of context. this was in the fox news interview last friday. >> once again, if it was taken out of context. we talked about him being right on obamacare, him being right on russia and that he would o-- we
would not be in this situation with regard to the economy. >> let me read exactly what you said. you said mitt was great. can you imagine if mitt was the president right now. he was right on russia, he was right on obamacare. he was right on the economy. and i guarantee you, we would not be worrying about ebola right now and worrying about our foreign policy screw-ups. >> thank you for repeating it for the fourth time. what we were talking about specifically, is that he would have a clear and concise policy on that issue. and since senator shaheen talked about immigration, i think it's very important to talk about immigration. i voted to send troops to the border. i voted to close the border. she's voted in the complete opposite. she is referring to a bill that would have been, given the president the ability to actually legalize about 11 million people and give them the ability to work and take away jobs from people in this country. i'm going to be working for the people of new hampshire, so they can get jobs. it's a real problem. the way to stop it, because he's preparing right now, it appears to in fact legalize additional
people who are not entitled to those benefits. we need to deal with the funding issues. >> we're going to get to immigration in a moment. you want to quickly respond to that before i move on? >> well, just the bill that i'm talking about is one that passed the senate with strong bipartisan support from republicans and democrats. it's not a bill that the president supported. we need the house to take this up, because if we're really going to deal with our broken immigration system, we need to address not just border security, we need to address our visa system. we need to address those people who are here illegally. and despite the suggestion from my opponent, that's not amnesty. i don't think kelly ayotte and john mccain would have voted for amnesty. >> all right. >> paul steinhauser, you have a question. >> thank you, wolf, getting back to ebola and senator shaheen, this is four. the president plans to send 4,000 u.s. military personnel to west africa, and that includes a general and our own new hampshire national guard to help prevent the spread of the disease. the question is, are you concerned about sending u.s.
troops to the ebola hot zone? >> well, i'm always concerned about our national guard troops when they're deployed anywhere. but the challenge that we have is that we need to help contain ebola. the united states has offered to lead that effort by sending equipment, by sending troops. most of those troops with very few exceptions are not going to be on the front lines working with ebola patients. they're going to be helping to train medical personnel in the three affected countries in west africa. they're going to be helping to build health centers. so -- and labs so that they can -- they can make sure that they can test people for ebola. and what we know is that if we're really going to contain this disease, we need to make sure that we fight it where it exists. that's happened in the past when ebola has occurred in africa. we have been able to support efforts to contain the disease. we need to do that now.
because as long as ebola exists in africa, there is the threat that it could go anywhere else in the world. >> senator brown, let's turn to the other big story of the day. yesterday, as you know, and all our viewers know, there was a terrorist attack in canada, right across the border from new hampshire and not very far away from where we are right now. here's the question. what additional security measures, if any, should be taken along new hampshire's northern border with canada? >> well, first of all, my heart goes out to those who have lost their life. obviously very serious situation with our -- one of our greatest allies in the world, canada. that being said, the prime minister said that it's terrorism. and i agree with him, based on all of the information and things we've heard. so the question is what are we going to do? obviously, we need to take any and all precautions, make sure we use vigilance and diligence when we're obviously looking to have enhanced border security. and that's another reason why we need to get a strong immigration policy. that's why we need to make sure we not only deal with our
northern border, but our southern borders. and just to step back for a minute, you asked a previous question about our troops. i recently retired from the military after 35 years, serving the last three at the pentagon. i take our troops and their missions very seriously. the question i have had from the beginning, what's the mission? where are the troops going? the senator said herself that we're not ebola experts. well, neither are our troops. and we're putting them potentially in harm's way with no mission, no clear mission. and no safeguard that i'm aware of or that the president has told us to make sure our troops are safe. so i would like to know more about that mission. >> let me just ask -- repeat the specific question. what additional security measures, if any, need to be taken at new hampshire's northern border with canada? senator brown? >> oh, i'm sorry. well, thank you once again. i said that we need to make sure that we work with our canadian partners, we need to make sure that we have enhanced border security, working with the immigration officials. if there is a need for troops, that is certainly up to the
governor through obviously working with our federal officials. and, you know, that's obviously very important. it's common sense issues. making sure that we deal with homeland security and making sure that they have a clear line of communication. as you know, there has been problems in the past of communicating with federal and state and local officials. and i think a lot of that has been addressed. but we have to make sure that we work with our canadian allies and federal law enforcement officials in state and local officials to make sure there is a clear and concise plan and clear and concise communication. >> all right. senator shaheen, you serve on capitol hill in washington. you're a member of the senate foreign relations committee. you saw what happened on parliament hill in ottawa yesterday. what should the u.s. be doing to make sure something like that never happens on capitol hill in washington? >> well, again, i share the concern about our canadian neighbors and i offer them our condolences. this shows why it's very important to support not just our homeland security efforts,
but also our law enforcement, our first responders. that's what i've done my entire career. i've supported the resources in washington to make sure that they have what they need as they protect us on capitol hill. i actually chair the subcommittee of appropriations that has oversight over capitol police. and this is where there is a difference between me and my opponent. because what scott brown did when he was in the massachusetts legislature was consistently vote to cut resources for law enforcement and first responders. and i think we've got to make sure they have the resources they need. i would never cut resources for our first responders to provide tax breaks for millionaires. and that's what my opponent did when he was in washington. i'm proud to have been endorsed by the new hampshire police association and the firefighters here. >> all right. senator brown? >> thank you. as a former member of the homeland security committee, one of the ranking members and ranking member in armed
services, and 35-year member of the army, serving last three at the pentagon, my first priority is the safety and security of this country. that's why i have been and others have spoken about securing our borders, first and foremost. that's why we need to make sure we streamline and consolidate every federal program to make sure we can maximize the federal dollars that you're getting. the federal government right now is not a good steward of our money. the obama administration right now has provided some good resources. but there are still holes where we need to work harder. i look forward to having that opportunity again. >> senator brown, let me follow up on this. the whole threat of isis and the war that the u.s. now has engaged in against this terrorist group. if u.s. military commander -- you spent a lot of time in the military -- were to recommend that some u.s. ground combat forces have to go into iraq and syria, would you support that? >> i think it's -- isis is a real issue. it's a rational fear, not only with our citizens but everybody
throughout our country and world. and you have to look back. what is isis? it's al qaeda of iraq. and it's getting bigger and bader. size of new england. right now general dempsey has said previously there may be a time when we need to send ground troops. president obama and senator shaheen have taken that off the table. my question in the last debate with senator shaheen, what if air strikes don't work? then what? it was not an answer. i'm not sure if there will be an answer tonight. but to take the greatest fighting force off the table right away is not how you -- you deal with a battle. i would rely on those generals on the ground. and i would rely on general dempsey to make sure that we know the full picture. and this should be a mechanism that the president should use congress to come up with those answers so we can be fully informed and talk to our constituents. right now it's been a -- it's, according to secretary -- former secretary panetta, half steps and missteps. and as a result, our allies don't trust us, our foes don't
fear or respect us. it's an incoherent policy and senator shaheen as a member of the foreign policy committee has endorsed those foreign policies 100%. >> go ahead and answer the question. >> well, general dempsey just last week said that we don't need to send troops in. i don't support sending tens of thousands of troops back to the middle east as an occupying force. the threat of isis is real. but again, we should not be fear mongering about the threat of isis. the fact is, my opponent ran weeks of ads that said radical islamic terrorists threatened to cause the collapse of america. well, that's just not true. we have the strongest military in the world. and we are not going to let isis or any other terrorist group cause the collapse of this country. >> so is it a mistake for the president of the united states to take ground troops off the table? >> well, again, i think we're building an international
coalition. you know, my opponent says that our allies don't trust us. but, in fact, we've got a coalition that has over 60 partners. we are engaged in air strikes with not just our european partners, but arab countries. we've already taken out hundreds of isis fighters. we're also going after the financing of isis. we're going after their recruitment efforts. and again, i don't think we should be putting tens of thousands of american troops back in as an occupying force. and we should also not be talking about isis in a way that spreads fear and panic among our population. that's just political grandstanding. what we need is serious people to talk about this issue in a serious way that is going to address the challenge. >> so answer the question, was it a mistake for the president of the united states to take the option of inserting u.s. combat ground troops off the table? >> it's not a mistake to take it
off the table right now. and general dempsey said just within the last two weeks that he doesn't recommend putting ground troops into the middle east right now. and i don't think the american people want to see tens of thousands of american troops back in the middle east. but if we are going to authorize the use of military force in the middle east, we need to have the president come to congress and make that request and we need to have that debate. we owe it to the people of this country and we owe it to our fighting force, our military men and women. >> all right. >> with respect to the senator, she still hasn't answered your question. she didn't answer it last -- in the last debate, as well. and that's part of the problem. she is so tied in with president obama and his failed policies on this issue. the question was, would you agree with the president to send ground troops or not. bottom line is, you've already taken it off the table. you've taken the greatest
fighting force off the table. there is no one talking, by the way, about occupying forces. we're talking about a transitional force as we have done in other countries. not occupiers. we were there to assist the government -- the iraqi government to make sure that what happened wouldn't happen. and it's that type of lack of leadership -- >> well, we're there assisting the iraqi government. >> the allies don't trust us. >> we're assisting the kurds. >> senator, with respect, the kurds are hanging on for dear life. they're in trouble. the iraqi government is in trouble. isis is the size of new england right now. and you and the president have taken ground troops off the table, which is the worst thing you can do when you have the greatest fighting force in the world. you take them off the table. and that's part of the problem. you're so -- you're so supportive of this president, you can't even say if general dempsey and others say we need ground troops, you won't even say right now that yes we have to do it. their goal is to put a flag in the white house. our goal is to make sure it doesn't happen.
and right now, because of the -- and as you -- if you don't believe me, secretary panetta said he advocated for it. and the president rejected each and every opportunity to make sure we could have a transition force there. it was a mistake. but not for that effort, we would not be in this position. >> well, i have called on the president to come to congress to ask for an authorization for use of military force. so we can have this debate. i've said if he's not willing to do that, i'm already working with the chairman of the foreign relations committee to do that. but what's not responsible is for politicians to repeat isis talking points, like they're planning to plant a flag on the front steps of the white house. what's important here is that we address the threat. we're doing that by building an international coalition by supporting the fighters in iraq and the kurdish fighters who have a lot at stake, because it's their country. we should be sponsoring them. we should be going after the financing. but i'm not ready to say we need
to send troops in today. >> all right. senator shaheen, senator brown, i want both of you to stand by. we have a lot more coming up, many more questions, including president obama's role in this senate race here in new hampshire. do both candidates have some explaining to do about voting with president obama? we'll be right back. choose energi.org. a program of the american petroleum institute. log on to learn more. go to cnnpolitics.com for more in depth analysis and news from the election trail.
hey! so i'm looking at my bill, and my fico® credit score's on here. we give you your fico® score each month for free! awesomesauce! wow! the only person i know that says that is...lisa? julie?! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card and see your fico® credit score. mixed with tender chicken flakand homemade gravybles make for the best chicken pot pie. marie callender's.
welcome back to "debate night" we're in concord, new hampshire, with candidates in one of the most important races this midterm election year. let's get back to the questions. senator brown, seems to be a few different wings of the republican party, the john mccain republicans when it comes to foreign policy, very often anxious, willing to go ahead and intervene internationally. aren't, the rand paul republicans who are much more
reluctant to intervene, internationally. you have campaigned with both of these senators. whose foreign policy are you more closely aligned with, john mccain, or rand paul? >> i think they're both -- have -- play a valuable role in our party and i respect both of them greatly. that's the beauty of being an independent republican. like i am. i was the most bipartisan senator in the united states senate. unlike senator shaheen, who is voting with the president and his policies 99% of the time. so as an independent republican, i can work within my party and still find common ground. there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. and i will continue to listen, learn, do my own research and make my own decision. that's what it means to be an independent. >> are you with rand paul when he says he would like to eliminate all foreign aid and eventually even u.s. aid to israel? >> of course not. israel is our gratest ally. look what happened with hamas lobbing rockets and missiles. i've been there. the stress they're under right now is unbearable.
but i do think that we have an opportunity and an affirmative obligation to do that review of each and every dollar we give other countries. i believe there is an affirmative obligation to keep our citizens and our embassy safe. the fact that what we had happen in benghazi under the obama administration right now was unconscionab unconscionable. i felt there was an affirmative obligation with the dollars we give that government to make sure those types of things don't happen. >> senator shaheen, you voted with president obama 99% of the time, according to the nonpartisan congressional quarterly. so here's the question to you. how is a vote for you not a vote for president obama and his policies? >> you know, my opponent talks a lot about that survey that he's always quoting. in fact, he's built his whole campaign on that. but the fact is, i work and i vote for new hampshire. that's what i have always done. if you look at that survey, and we've got it posted on our website, so you can take a look at it. i'm proud of my record.
and take a look at the votes that are in that survey. one of those votes is the defense bill. well, i'm on the armed services committee, i worked hard on that defense bill. it's got provisions in it that help our national guard, that help the ports myth naval ship yard, that helped the air refuelling wing. i voted for that. not because the president supported it. but because it's good for new hampshire. another one of those votes in that survey is the fair pay act. i sponsored the fair pay act. it's -- it would provide equal pay for equal work for women. my opponent voted against that. not once but twice. now, i work for new hampshire. i put new hampshire first. that's what i've done my whole life. that's what i want to continue to do. as your senator. >> you want to respond? >> yes, wolf, thank you very much. the president is not up for re-election, but his policies are. he said that. and senator shaheen is his number one foot soldier. so if you want to make sure that harry reid is not the majority leader, we can take over the
senate and make sure that doesn't happen. that being said, she referenced two particular items that she's working for new hampshire. well, with respect senator, you have a zero rating with the national federation of independent businesses. that's not working for new hampshire businesses. with regard to the fair pay act that you've referenced many times, senator ayotte and i both voted against that bill. and with respect once again, i pay women in my office $1.21 for every dollar a man makes while you pay 95 currents for every dollar a man makes. i not only believe it, i live it. >> go ahead and respond. >> well, my opponent is quoting a right wing survey that doesn't even really understand what the equal pay act does. but the fact is, he talks about the national federation of independent businesses. well, what my opponent has done in washington, he comes here to new hampshire and he says he supports small businesses. but look at his record in washington. because what he supported in washington were the corporate special interests, big oil, giving $19 billion to the big
banks. and outsourcing american jobs. we don't need to import a candidate who is going to outsource our jobs. >> wolf, with respect, i've been fighting for small businesses forever. i have an a-rating with the national federation of independent business and an a-rating with the chamber of commerce. those are the two premier groups that rate us. we have ratings. in addition to her saying that the -- she doesn't vote with the president 99% of the time, i believe it was yesterday the congressional quarterly also came out with a new surveying that when the president lets us know what he's feeling, which is rare, but he does do it, 118 times he did it this last session. senator shaheen was with him 116 of those times. so even though she was being criticized for voting with the president 99% of the time, she continued to support him over and over and over again. and it's like we have two senators here. president obama is not only president, he's actually acting like the senator of new hampshire. >> eye quick chance to respond and then i want to move on. >> again, there is a big difference between my opponent and me.
because i support new hampshire small businesses, i've done that as governor, now in the senate. i voted for the small business jobs act to help our small businesses. my opponent voted against it. i voted to provide tax cuts for over 30,000 new hampshire businesses. my opponent voted against it. i voted for the travel promotion act to help our tourism industry so we could attract visitors from outside the united states. my opponent voted against it. he comes to new hampshire, and he says he's for small business. but look at his record in washington. >> wolf, with respect, facts are stubborn things. i have an a-rating with not only the nfib but the chamber. >> but it's a koch-funded organization. koch brothers funded organization. >> i was with a business yesterday. been in the family for generations. they have been a member of the nfib for 50 years. and they're just trying to make a living. but because of the policies pushed forth by president obama and you, and you on energy, being the deciding vote on obamacare, with the businessman
date coming in after the election, you have a zero rating. i'm not quite sure how folks get a zero rating and say they're fighting for small business. it just doesn't add up. >> all right. let's move on. because we have a good question for senator brown. you've criticized senator shaheen for voting with president obama 99% of the time. but we went back to the congressional quarterly analysis and your last year in the united states senate as a republican senator from massachusetts, cq, the congressional quarterly, says you voted with president obama 78% of the time. how do you explain that? >> well, when the president does something right, i'll support him. when he doesn't do something right, i will make sure i let him know that. that is a huge difference to be an independent senator. i voted with my party and the other side about 50% in my entire career. that being said, as an independent senator, i can do that. so when we work together with the president on an insider trading bill, my bill worked forward, we got it done. i worked with democrats to bring them over, and we were at the
signing ceremony. the higher hero veterans bill. the ability to give veterans jobs and employers the ability to actually get a little bit of a tax credit. the arlington cemetery bill to make sure our heroes were buried properly. body parts in a mulch pile. i think senator shaheen voted for that. there are times, certainly, because if you want gridlock, send senator shaheen. if you want somebody who is an independent problem solver, has a history with working both sides and has also been named, wolf, the most bipartisan senator in the united states senate, then i'm your guy. >> do you want to respond? >> yes. my opponent, again, talks a lot about that survey. but what he won't tell you is why the koch brothers are spending $2.6 million in new hampshire to support his campaign. i don't think it's because they think he's going to go down to washington and support small businesses. i think it's because they know he's going to go to washington, he's going to continue to
support subsidies to the big oil companies, the five biggest oil companies last year made over $90 billion. and he wants to give them over $20 billion in subsidies. i don't think that's good for new hampshire. >> wolf, once again, she is distorting a bill that not only senator ayotte voted against but democrats voted against. and if you want to talk about money, we're both raising money the same way. she has her groups, we have our groups. they're doing whatever they want. i'm scott brown and i approve that message. those are my messages. that being said, we have an opportunity, because the people of new hampshire are smarter. they're very sophisticated. they understand that senator shaheen has not held town halls. when she went to washington, she changed and had is not focusing on small business. she has a zero rating. with respect, i have been down there fighting for small businesses. that's why i have an a-rating with the national federation and
united states chamber of commerce. >> the national federation of independent businesses has businesses here and i appreciate what those members do. but the fact is, like his support in so many other ways in this campaign, they are funded by the koch brothers. we need somebody in washington who is going to really support our small businesses. that's what i've done my whole career. that's what i'll continue to do. . >> senator shaheen, former president bill clinton came to campaign with you. hillary clinton is coming next weekend to campaign with you. elizabeth warren. she'll also be joining you on the campaign trail. here's the question. why don't you want president obama to come to new hampshire and campaign with you? >> well, i never said i didn't want president obama to come and campaign. the fact is, he's busy in washington. he's dealing with the ebola threat. he's dealing with the threat from isis. i think he's exactly where he needs to be. but again, the fact is, there are big differences in this race between my opponent and me. and it's not just about the president. he would like to be running
against the president in new hampshire. because he doesn't want to talk about the issues that are important to new hampshire. who is going to go to washington and support our middle class families here. who is going to support for affordable student loans, so our young people aren't facing years of debt, because of the student loans they have taken out. who is going to fight to make sure that we don't outsource our jobs because right now new hampshire has lost more jobs to china than any other state in the country. that's what i've done my whole career. that's what i will continue to do. and what my opponent did, when he represented massachusetts in washington, was to support the corporate special interests. he was a rubber stamp for the wall street banks. he was a rubber stamp for the big oil companies. >> so let me just be precise. the president in recent days has gone out, left washington, he's campaigned for candidates in illinois and maryland. do you want him to come in the final days and feicampaign for ? >> i don't think it makes sense
for the president to come to new hampshire right now. >> wolf, if i may, the reason she does not want the president here, because he cannot explain why he pushed on a health care bill that's destroying businesses right now. he apologized for pushing that. senator shaheen has yet to explain why she was the deciding vote and why she has% led our citizens on that issue. we all have surrogates coming in, by the way, but the people of new hampshire, they're going to make the decision based on town halls, which i have held, she hasn't. and by the way, the president also said that he doesn't need to be here because all his policies are on the ballot. i agree with him. he also said that, hey, i don't care if they don't want me. i don't care if they hide from me, because i know when they get re-elected they'll be there for me. and that's what senator shaheen will do, because she has done it for six years, folks. sometimes she votes 100% with the president. that's not independent leadership from new hampshire. >> let me just respond on a couple of points. first of all, on the affordable care act, i believe everybody in
new hampshire should have access to quality, affordable health care. that's what i voted for. and that's what i continue to support. do we need to make changes to it? yes. there are fixes that we need to make. but we have 90,000 people in new hampshire now who have access to health care, who didn't before. people like steve white, who is a realtor from london airy. he didn't have health insurance because he had a preexisting condition. finally, his daughter got him to enroll in the affordable care act and the exchange. two months later, he had a quadruplel bypass. without the affordable care act, he would have been in financial ruin. it's doing great things for so many people in new hampshire, and my opponent wants to repeal it. he doesn't have a plan to replace it. >> you want to repeal it? >> of course. i've already voted five times to repeal it. she was the deciding vote when she says she wants to fix it -- >> there were 60 of us. >> excuse me. every democrat voted and yes, every democrat was the deciding vote for a terrible bill that's
crushing businesses. right now after the election, folks, the business is coming in. deductibles have gone up, costs have gone up, coverages have gone down. i was just up the street at a pizza place, they can't afford obamacare, they can't afford insurance and to think i don't want people to have insurance. i have a plan, you repeal it. you put in place something that works for new hampshire, that respects our rights and freedoms, that is affordable that has competition. let's not forget, when the senator was governor, she forced the insurance companies out to the point where they said they were going to leave. and we now have one. >> you're shaking your head. >> after the election, we are going to have more. >> that's just wrong. what my opponent wants to do is to kick tens of thousands of people off their health care plan without anything to replace it. so he wants to go back to a time when insurance companies could deny people health care because they had a preexisting condition. when if you reached your annual limits, you could get your health care cut off. when if you were 26, you couldn't stay on your parents' plan. if you were on medicare, you didn't get those co-pays.
the fact is, the cost of health care has stabilized. its lowest rate in 50 years in terms of the increase in costs. and what we're seeing now is that rates are only going to go up less than 1%. >> i want to get paul steinhauser into this. paul, you have another question. >> thank you, wolf. shifting gears here. senator brown, this question for you. we know you want to secure our border, but the department of homeland security has estimates that there are currently 11 million people in this country living illegally. what do we do with those 11 million people? >> whatever we do with the people who are here illegally, i cannot support a bill or any effort to provide them ebt cards, preferential housing and other benefits they have not earned. a huge difference between senator shaheen and me and president obama is about border security. it's about immigration. she supports the dream act. i don't. she supports the president's enhanced use of his executive authority. he's right now preparing by all accounts to actually legalize
people that are here illegally who are not entitled to the protections and/or the rights and privileges that have been earned by our citizens. and what about the 4.6 million people that are actually following the law? what do you say to them? it's wrong. we need to make sure that we step in, we have an opportunity, folks. we can actually take over the senate, go after the funding source to make sure the president can't do that. so whatever plan we have, whatever we do, i can't continue to provide benefits and reward that illegality. is there a process? potential loo ly. but until we're absolutely sure they can't get those benefits to continue to reward that illegality, i can't support it. >> quick response. >> first of all, people who are here illegally don't get preferential benefits. the fact is if are you want security, you should have bipartisan support, not just with border security, the people here illegally and it deals with our broken visa system. my opponent, when he was in the
senate, he was on the homeland security committee, and not only devote to slash the home land secured budget, but missed all six hearings on border security when he was on that committee. if he's really serious about immigration reform, he should support a comprehensive bill as i do. >> i'll give you a chance to respond. >> thanks wolf, with respect. i spent 35 years in the national guard. colonel, served at the pentagon. i don't need anyone to tell us that the border is porous and that people are coming over the border. they're coming over the border. it's real. there is a rational fear from citizens in new hampshire and throughout this country that people are coming either criminal elements, terrorist elements, people with diseases coming through our border. so with respect, i don't need to attend those hearings. and did not need to attend those hearings. and i did not slash the budget for homeland security, with all respect. >> that's what you voted for. >> let's talk about hearings. when isis was percolating
senator shaheen as a member of the foreign relations committee missed a very important hearing on isis. and then she's been silent up until recently when we had a tragedy on this issue. once again, following in lockstep with the president and his failed policies is incoherent, his half steps and missteps as secretary panetta did. >> go ahead, quickly. we've got to take a break. >> my opponent is wrong. i attended 16 hearings on isis and foreign relations committee and armed services committee. and the fact is, i was asking questions about isis before my opponent ever moved to new hampshire. >> senator shaheen, senator brown, both stand by. we have more questions. what kind of tradeoffs are these candidates willing to make to push through policies with new hampshire jobs on the line. we'll be right back. this is kathleen. setting up the perfect wedding day starts with her minor arthritis pain, and two pills. afternoon arrives and feeling good, but her knee pain returns. that's two more pills. the evening's event brings laughter, joy, and more pain. what's that, like six pills today?
conquer new hampshire. this is one of the races that could decide control of the united states senate less than two weeks from now. remember, you can go to bing.com/cnn to vote. let's get back to the debate. senator shahine, you support raising the minimum wage, but the noncongressional budget office estimates a half a million jobs would be lost nationally if that were to happen. is it worth it? >> there are a number of analyses that say we wow create more jobs. the fact is about two-thirds of workers are women. i think we need to make sure that they support their families. we also know that it will lift about a million people out of poverty. and it would help reduce other government expenses because they
would no longer be dependent on government programs. but, dwen, this is one of the issues that distinguishes me from my opponent because i have been supporting middle class families here, wanting to support raising the minimum wage. my opponent has said well, we don't know where he is because he's been on both sides of the issue. one of the things about that nsid survey is that he got a hundred percent rating on it and one of the things is he didn't support raising the minimum wage. i think it's now clear that he doesn't support that. i think it's good for our families. we should support that. we should make sure that people can make a living. >> right now, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. about $15,000 a year. do you support the minimum wage? >> i remember working at minimum wage. i still remember what the smell is.
my mom had a minimum wage job. and i've supported minimum wage increases before. but here's the key. everybody's at the table. what's happening right now is another effort by the obama administration as supported by senator shahine to dictate to businesses what they can pay. they're not being asked hey, can you afford raise for folks? you look at health care costs and the high cost of energy. folks who have gotten 50-100% increases already. all i have ever said, if we're going to have that conversation, because i have done it before, is to make sure that people actually writing the checks and actually paying people have a seet at the tab seat at the table and they don't. we feed to make sure that whatever we do, it takes into consideration every aspect of that. >> so just to move out, you
support minimum wage? >> i've made my position very clear. that in order to have this conversation, it can't be dick tated by the president. they want to pay more than minimum wage. they want to keep them this, but with a strange and stresses and awe of the regulations and additional burdens the senator is putting on them. that's why she has the zero rating business. hold onto your pockets and pocketbooks, folks. >> mid opponent needs to bring people around the table to see if they can all agree. he didn't have that concern giving subsidies worth $20 million to oil companies. >> let's take a quick break. are these candidates living up to it?
we'll be right back. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. the all-new mercedes-benz gla took nearly 600lbs of high- strength steel. setting industry-leading safety standards took 20,800 crash simulations. and perfecting its engine
took over 1.1 million miles of extreme driving. but, this may be the most impressive number of all. introducing the all-new mercedes-benz gla. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. ♪ introducing synchrony financial. bringing new meaning to the word, partnership. banking. loyalty. analytics. synchrony financial. engage with us.
welcome back to debate night in concord, new hampshire. you've got a good question for the new hampshire people to abso absorb? >> this question is for both of you. your motto up here is live by your life or die. how much have you lived that? >> well, thank you very much. i think we have too much government control in our life right now. we're in a place right now where they're trying to out source our second amendment rights to the united nations. we have a situation where the government is mandating what we can and can't do with health kaer. that's why i want to bring it back to the states and let us be parlt of it.
our local families and school boards ought to be able to make those decisions. in our state, live free or die, means more to us than other people throughout the country. to make sure we have little or hardly any government intervention. then you throw in the regulations, the costs, taking the tax money and not doing anything with it. we can do better. there is a fundamental difference. i have been fighting for our small businesses mpx and my opponent went to washington and fought for the corporate special interest. >> i want to thank both of you
for joining us. thanks to you, as well, thanks to our host and analytical pa papau paul steinhowser. i'm wolf blitzer, thank you very much for watching. >> the last time i went to maryland, i tried to save a bell. it was a big bell. a dirty bell. and it hung from the top an of old steeple. anyway, i'm headed back to maryland just to save one of these. they other not dirty at all. but to save them, you have to hide under a white sheet. somebo "somebody's got to do it." new show, new mission. same guy.